1932
0

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 7, 2021

Noncanonical Passives: A Typology of Voices in an Impoverished Universal Grammar

Abstract

Noncanonical passives crosslinguistically exhaust the space of possible variation, supporting an approach whereby Universal Grammar is underspecified for the characteristics of voice and the properties of any particular construction are learned through experience. Languages considered include Passamaquoddy and Oji-Cree (Algonquian); Dutch and Icelandic (Germanic); Ukrainian (Slavic); Welsh and Irish (Celtic); Hindi (Indo-Aryan); Acehnese, Indonesian, and Manggarai (Malayo-Polynesian); Sason Arabic (Arabic); Bemba and Kirundi (Bantu); Lithuanian (Baltic); Turkish (Turkic); and Mandarin (Sinitic).

Keyword(s): active existential, causative, impersonal, impersonal passive, inverse, noncanonical, object voice, passive, perfective passive, subject–object reversal, voice
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031920-114459
2021-01-04
2025-06-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/7/1/annurev-linguistics-031920-114459.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031920-114459&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aissen J. 1989. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 17:673–711
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aissen J. 2003. Differential object marking: iconicity versus economy. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 21:435–83
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Akkuş F Variable embedded agent in Sason Arabic. J. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Arka IW. 2003. Balinese Morphosyntax: A Lexical-Functional Approach Canberra: Pac. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Arka IW. 2008. Voice and the syntax of = a/-a verbs in Balinese. Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages P Austin, S Musgrave 70–89 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Arka IW, Kosmas J. 2005. Passive without passive morphology? Evidence from Manggarai. The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems IW Arka, M Ross 87–117 Canberra: Pac. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Arka IW, Manning CD. 1998. Voice and grammatical relations in Indonesian: a new perspective. Proceedings of the International Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference (LFG98) M Butt, T Holloway King Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Baker M. 2015. Case: Its Principles and Parameters Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Baker M, Johnson K, Roberts I 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguist. Inq. 20:219–51
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Béjar S, Rezac M. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguist. Inq. 40:35–73
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Billings L, Maling J. 1995. Accusative-assigning participial -no/-to constructions in Ukrainian, Polish, and neighboring languages: an annotated bibliography. Parts 1 and 2. J. Slav. Linguist. 3:177–217396–430
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Blevins JP. 2003. Passives and impersonals. J. Linguist. 39:472–520
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Borsley RD, Tallerman M, Willis D 2007. The Syntax of Welsh Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bowers J. 2010. Arguments as Relations Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Brittain J. 1999. The distribution of the conjunct verb form in Western Naskapi and related morpho-syntactic issues PhD Thesis, Meml. Univ. Nfld., St. John's Can:.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bruening B. 2001. Syntax at the edge: cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy PhD Thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA:
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Bruening B. 2005. The Algonquian inverse is syntactic: binding in Passamaquoddy Unpubl. Ms., Univ. Del., Newark http://udel.edu/∼bruening/Downloads/SyntacticInversion2.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bruening B. 2009. Algonquian languages have A-movement and A-agreement. Linguist. Inq. 40:427–45
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Bruening B, Tran T. 2015. The nature of the passive, with an analysis of Vietnamese. Lingua 165:133–72
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Büring D. 2004. Crossover situations. Nat. Lang. Semant. 12:23–62
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Burzio L. 1986. Italian Syntax Dordrecht: Neth.: Reidel
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Charnavel I. 2019. Locality and Logophoricity: A Theory of Exempt Anaphora Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Cheng LLS. 2006. Decomposing Bantu relatives. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 36) C Davis, AR Deal, Y Zabbal 197–215 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Chomsky N. 1980. On binding. Linguist. Inq. 11:1–46
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Chomsky N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik R Martin, D Michaels, J Uriagereka 89–155 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Chung S. 1976. On the subject of two passives in Indonesian. Subject and Topic CN Li 57–99 New York: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Cole P, Hermon G, Yanti 2008. Voice in Malay/Indonesian. Lingua 118:1500–53
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Collins C. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8:81–120
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Comrie B. 1977. In defense of spontaneous demotion: the impersonal passive. Grammatical Relations P Cole, JM Saddock 47–58 New York: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Conners TJ. 2008. Tengger Javanese PhD Thesis, Yale Univ New Haven, CT:
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Dahlstrom A. 1986. Plains Cree morphosyntax PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif Berkeley:
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Durie M. 1985. A Grammar of Acehnese on the Basis of a Dialect of North Aceh Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Eythórsson T. 2008. The new passive in Icelandic really is a passive. Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers E Thórhallur 173–219 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Feng SL. 1995. GB-theory and the passive construction in Chinese. Stud. Chin. Linguist. 1:1–28
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Feng SL. 2012. Empty operator movement in Chinese passive syntax. Festschrift for Professor Fang Li LJ Wang 117–36 Beijing: Beijing Lang. Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Fitch WT, Hauser MD, Chomsky N 2005. The evolution of the language faculty: clarifications and implications. Cognition 97:179–210
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Guilfoyle E, Hung H, Travis L 1992. Spec of IP and spec of VP: two subjects in Austronesian languages. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 10:375–414
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Haspelmath M. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. Stud. Lang. 14:25–72
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Henderson B. 2006. Multiple agreement and inversion in Bantu. Syntax 9:275–87
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Henderson B. 2011. Agreement, locality, and OVS in Bantu. Lingua 121:742–53
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Huang CTJ. 1999. Chinese passives in comparative perspective. Tsing Hua J. Chin. Stud. 29:423–509
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Jaeggli O. 1986. Passive. Linguist. Inq. 17:587–622
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Jeoung H. 2017. On the number of voices in Madurese. J. Southeast Asian Linguist. Soc. 10:16–35
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Jónsson JG. 2009. The new impersonal as a true passive. Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax A Alexiadou, J Hankamer, T McFadden, J Nuger, F Schäfer 281–306 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Klaiman MH. 1992. Inverse languages. Lingua 88:227–61
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Kroeger P. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Kula NC, Marten L. 2010. Argument structure and agency in Bemba passives. Bantu Languages K Legère, C Thornell 115–30 Cologne, Ger: Rüdiger Köppe
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Lavine JE. 2013. Passives and near-passives in Balto-Slavic. Non-Canonical Passives A Alexiadou, F Schäfer 185–212 Philadelphia: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Lavine JE, Freidin R. 2002. The subject of defective T(ense) in Slavic. J. Slav. Linguist. 10:253–89
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Lawler JM. 1977. A agrees with B in Achenese: a problem for Relational Grammar. Grammatical Relations P Cole, JM Saddock 219–48 New York: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Legate JA. 2012. Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive. Language 88:495–525
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Legate JA. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese Cambridge, MA: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Legate JA Case out of Universal Grammar. On the Place of Case in the Grammar E Anagnostopoulou, D Mertyris, C Sevdali Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Legate JA, Akkuş F, Šereikaitė M, Ringe D Forthcoming. On passives of passives. Language
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Li C. 2007. Evolution of the bei constructions in Chinese. J. Chin. Linguist. 35:98–127
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Mahajan A. 1995. Active passives. Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 13) R Aranovich, W Byrne, S Preuss, M Senturiapp 286–301 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Malchukov A, Siewierska A. 2011. Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective Philadelphia: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Maling J. 2006. From passive to active: syntactic change in progress in Icelandic. Demoting the Agent: Passive, Middle and Other Voice Phenomena B Lyngfelt, T Solstad 197–223 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Maling J, Sigurjónsdóttir S. 2002. The new impersonal construction in Icelandic. J. Comp. Ger. Linguist. 5:97–142
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Marantz A. 1991. Case and licensing. Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics G Westphal, B Ao, HR Chae 234–53 Columbus: Dep. Linguist., Ohio State Univ.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Marten L, van der Wal J 2014. A typology of Bantu subject inversion. Linguist. Var. 14:318–68
     [Google Scholar]
  62. McCloskey J. 1996. Subjects and subject positions in Irish. The Syntax of the Celtic Languages: A Comparative Perspective RD Borsley, I Roberts 241–83 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  63. McCloskey J. 1997. Subjecthood and subject positions. Elements of Grammar L Haegeman 197–235 Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer
     [Google Scholar]
  64. McCloskey J. 2007. The grammar of autonomy in Irish. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 25:825–57
     [Google Scholar]
  65. McKinnon T, Cole P, Hermon G 2011. Object agreement and ‘pro-drop’ in Kerinci Malay. Language 87:715–50
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Mohanan T. 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Ndayiragije J. 1999. Checking economy. Linguist. Inq. 30:399–444
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Nolan B. 2006. The passives of modern Irish. Passivization and Typology: Form and Function W Abraham 132–64 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Noonan M. 1994. A tale of two passives in Irish. Voice: Form and Function B Fox, PJ Hopper 279–311 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Ó Sé D. 2006. Agent phrases with the autonomous verb in modern Irish. Ériu 56:85–115
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Oxford W. 2019. The Algonquian inverse: syntax or morphology? Paper presented at the Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Meeting Vancouver, Can: June 1–3
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Perlmutter DM, Postal PM. 1984. The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law. Studies in Relational Grammar DM Perlmutter, C Rosen Vol 281–125 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Pitteroff M. 2015. Non-canonical middles: a study of personal let-middles in German. J. Comp. Ger. Ling. 18:1–64
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Postal P. 1986. Studies of Passive Clauses Albany: SUNY Press
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Reinhart T. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation London: Croom Helm
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Richards N. 2000. Another look at Tagalog subjects. Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics I Paul, V Phillips, L Travis 105–16 Stud. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 49 Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Rizzi L. 1990. Relativized Minimality Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Ruys EG. 2000. Weak crossover as a scope phenomenon. Linguist. Inq. 31:513–39
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Sato Y. 2012. Successive cyclicity at the syntax–morphology interface: evidence from Standard Indonesian and Kendal Javanese. Stud. Linguist. 66:32–57
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Schachter P. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above?. Subject and Topic CN Li 493–518 New York: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Schachter P. 1996. The Subject in Tagalog: Still None of the Above UCLA Occas. Pap. Linguist. 15 Los Angeles: Dep. Linguist., UCLA
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Sigurðsson EF, Stefánsdóttir B. 2014. ‘by’-Phrases in Icelandic new impersonal passive. Univ. Pa. Work. Pap. Linguist. 20:1311–20
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Sigurðsson EF, Wood J. 2020. On the implicit argument of Icelandic indirect causatives. Linguist. Inq. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00384
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. Sigurðsson HA. 2011. On the new passive. Syntax 14:148–78
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Sneddon JN. 1996. Indonesian: A Comprehensive Grammar London/New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Sobin NJ. 1985. Case assignment in Ukrainian morphological passive constructions. Linguist. Inq. 16:649–62
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Šereikaitė M. 2020a. Active existential voice in Lithuanian: remarks on Burzio's Generalization. Linguist. Inq. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00392
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. Šereikaitė M. 2020b. Voice and case phenomena in Lithuanian morphosyntax PhD Thesis, Univ Pa., Philadelphia:
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Tan TL, Kühlert N. 2019. The double duty of the Sakha “passive.” Abstract presented at the 5th Workshop on Turkic and Languages in Contact with Turkic (Tu+5) Newark, DE: Febr. 8–9
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Thorne DA. 1993. A Comprehensive Welsh Grammar Oxford, UK: Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Ting J. 1998. Deriving the bei-construction in Mandarin Chinese. J. East Asian Linguist. 7:319–54
     [Google Scholar]
  92. van Urk C. 2013. Visser's Generalization: the syntax of control and the passive. Linguist. Inq. 44:168–78
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Voskuil J. 1996. Comparative Morphology: Verb Taxonomy in Indonesian, Tagalog, and Dutch The Hague: Holland Acad. Graph.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Wechsler S, Arka IW. 1998. Syntactic ergativity in Balinese: an argument structure based theory. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 16:387–442
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Yang C. 2016. The Price of Linguistic Productivity Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Yanti J. 2010. A reference grammar of Jambi Malay PhD Thesis, Univ Del., Newark:
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031920-114459
Loading

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error